Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Williams-Sonoma
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Williams-Sonoma was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP. 5 votes to keep, 2 votes to delete. Postdlf 13:35, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Williams-Sonoma
Now I'm not quite (yet) out of my mind, of course Williams-Sonoma is notable, and eventually this substub should be expanded, not deleted. But I couldn't figure out how else to call some potential spamming to everybody's attention. The photo is the obvious main item on this page; now notice that the photo doesn't in fact illustrate anything about the ostensible subject of the article; then that outside photos of other stores in the same mall have sprouted on other new pages this morning: Tommy Bahama, Disney Store, Pottery Barn, all by the same person.
Is this spam? What to do about it? If I had photos from other malls, or better yet, of the products sold by these firms, I'd substitute them; but I don't. — Bill 13:14, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Abstain. Surely, everyone agrees that chains like Pottery Barn deserve an article. Wyllium 14:58, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)
- Abstain - perhaps Wikipedia:Images for deletion is a better place to deal with this issue. OTOH, the pictures in question are storefronts in a public place. The uploader (at least on this one) gave the photo to the public domain. They do in fact illustrate the articles in question. It could be that someone wandering through this mall chose to take pictures of the stores for Wikipedia. Even if it were done with the connivance of management, with a view to self-promotion, I doubt it's a sort of spam we can (or want to) do anything about. Smerdis of Tlön 15:47, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Please don't use VfD for this. Try the Village Pump --Improv 17:46, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- What's the problem here? People making stubs to go with their photos? Find a better photo or improve the article. Gamaliel 20:28, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. It's a well-recognized mall store. Article should be expanded - Lifefeed 20:53, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: We are not a place to show off your photos! Photos serve the articles. So, when the author feels like doing some damned research and writing an article about Williams Sonoma, then the author can show off his or her snaps. Otherwise, this is bull, and I'm very disappointed to see people saying this isn't a VfD issue. Substubs this mind bogglingly bad are an offense. Why, with my dial up connection, should I spend :45 waiting to look at some goofy picture of a store the looks of which I know well just to read "it's a store that sells cookware?" Give me a break, guys. This is the kind of substub that should be speedy deleted. Geogre 21:22, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Absolutely disagree with Geogre (sorry). The article is lacking, but the subject is deserving--and the picture isn't spam, it's useful! Good photo, and we shouldn't lose it just because we don't have any text to go with it yet. There's few reasons to delete a substub if the topic is deserving, and this photo makes it even less worthy of deletion. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 22:39, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep tons of potential to become encyclopedic. Are not these guys at every mall in America now? I highly doubt this is spam also, I believe it was a good natured attemptto add to wikipeida, one that was successful —siroχo 22:56, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. This is not a good photo: The name is barely visible, the corporate logo is invisible and there are no other design elements present for a store chain where design is crucial. The text is useless. Too bad, becasue just a paragraph or just a good photo could have been a good kickoff for an article on the chain as a design phenomenon. --AlainV 02:12, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
So there is (more or less) general agreement, including from me: obviously Williams-Sonoma is notable and needs an article, but the photo is worthless (whether spam, hard to say). I'm going thru the four articles now and removing the photos. — Bill 11:45, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Keep User:JamesMLane's new stub, which meets my low bar of "sorta-kinda-half-decent." And Keep the picture until and unless we get a better one. The picture IMHO adds something. It is an amateurish snaphot (barrel distortion, bad color temperature and all), not a professional photograph, but it gives a perfectly good impression of what one of these stores looks like. I wonder whether we could approach William-Sonoma and say, politely, give us a nice, glossy color 8x10 of your storefront licensed under GFDL or we'll continue to use this one? Nope, borrowing trouble... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 17:32, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Comment Did the page ever have a VfD tag on it? I don't think I accidentally removed it. Can't find it in the history. Should someone put one there? I guess I will... If this is a mistake and it shouldn't be tagged, my apologies. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 18:05, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. I think it never had the VfD tag because Bill listed it mainly to get comments on the photo issue. When I looked at it, it was an untagged substub, so I turned it into a stub. With or without the photo, we should have an article on this company. Obviously, there's much room for expansion. JamesMLane 20:21, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- That's correct. Someone else later removed the Vfd tag: which is fine by me, since of course I don't want to delete the (eventual) article. Still don't feel good about the photos though, and have a nagging feeling that that clump of 4 squiblets, all illustrated from the same mall, is an attempt at manipulating Wikipedia. — Bill 22:24, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
